Ignoring Obama's repeated denunciations of Farrakhan during debate, NY Times quoted him only as saying, "I obviously can't censor him. ... It is not support that I sought"
SUMMARY: After reporting that, at the Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama "was asked whether he would reject the support of Louis Farrakhan," The New York Times' Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny purported to convey Obama's response, but left out Obama's repeated denunciation of Farrakhan's comments, writing only: " 'I obviously can't censor him,' Mr. Obama said. 'It is not support that I sought.' "
In a February 27 New York Times article about the previous evening's Democratic presidential debate, Patrick Healy and Jeff Zeleny reported that, Sen. Barack Obama "was asked whether he would reject the support of Louis Farrakhan, the longtime leader of the Nation of Islam." But in purporting to convey Obama's response, Healy and Zeleny wrote only: " 'I obviously can't censor him,' Mr. Obama said. 'It is not support that I sought,' " ignoring Obama's repeated denunciation of Farrakhan's comments.
Indeed, Obama's immediate response to moderator and NBC Washington bureau chief Tim Russert's question, "Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?" was to assert: "You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think they are unacceptable and reprehensible." Moreover, the portion of Obama's response that the Times quoted came two lines after Obama's denunciation of Farrakhan's past statements, and was later followed by Obama saying: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements. And I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments." Obama went on to say, "I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it," later adding that he "would reject and denounce" Farrakhan's support.
From Healy and Zeleny's February 27 article in The New York Times:
As the debate drew to a close, Mr. Obama was asked whether he would reject the support of Louis Farrakhan, the longtime leader of the Nation of Islam, who announced last weekend that he would back Mr. Obama's presidential bid.
"I obviously can't censor him," Mr. Obama said. "It is not support that I sought."
From the February 26 MSNBC Democratic primary debate:
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, one of the things in a campaign is that you have to react to unexpected developments. On Sunday, the headline in your hometown paper, Chicago Tribune: "Louis Farrakhan Backs Obama for President at Nation of Islam Convention in Chicago." Do you accept the support of Louis Farrakhan?
OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.
RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. [laughter] You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
RUSSERT: The problem some voters may have is, as you know, Reverend Farrakhan called Judaism "gutter religion."
OBAMA: Tim, I think -- I am very familiar with his record, as are the American people. That's why I have consistently denounced it. This is not something new. This is something that -- I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him.
RUSSERT: The title of one of your books, Audacity of Hope, you acknowledge you got from a sermon from Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the head of the Trinity United Church. He said that Louis Farrakhan "epitomizes greatness." He said that he went to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan to visit with Moammar Gadhafi and that, when your political opponents found out about that, quote, "your Jewish support would dry up quicker than a snowball in Hell."
What do you do to assure Jewish-Americans that, whether it's Farrakhan's support or the activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with issues regarding Israel and not in any way suggesting that Farrakhan epitomizes greatness?
OBAMA: Tim, I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct, and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community.
And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form, but also because of the fact that what I want to do is rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African-American community and the Jewish community.
You know, I would not be sitting here were it not for a whole host of Jewish Americans who supported the civil rights movement and helped to ensure that justice was served in the South. And that coalition has frayed over time around a whole host of issues, and part of my task in this process is making sure that those lines of communication and understanding are reopened.
But, you know, the reason that I have such strong support in the Jewish community and have historically -- it was true in my U.S. Senate campaign, and it's true in this presidency -- is because the people who know me best know that I consistently have not only befriended the Jewish community, not only have I been strong on Israel, but, more importantly, I've been willing to speak out even when it is not comfortable.
When I was -- just the last point I would make -- when I was giving -- had the honor of giving a sermon at Ebenezer Baptist Church in conjunction with Martin Luther King's birthday in front of a large African-American audience, I specifically spoke out against anti-Semitism within the African-American community. And that's what gives people confidence that I will continue to do that when I'm president of the United States.
WILLIAMS: Senator --
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti-Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.
And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.
RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far-reaching.
OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.















Well Obama certainly turned this to his favor last night, he rightly conceded the point, and both denounced and rejected Farrakhan's support.
But I wonder when the thread topic will come here also from the debate last night, how "uncritically", MMFA's favorite word, both Russert and Williams were when Hillary lied about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan. I mean there have been several threads about McCain or other conservatives when they said this, will the same criticism of Hillary be forthcoming?
LOSTLOGIC:
The MISINFORMATION in the MEDIA is carried on by employees/pudits IN the Media and all the paid rightwing shills they can crowd into a screen shot.
It is this unbalanced, unchallenged MISINFORMATION, in the MEDIA, that is MMFA's mission, to expose and correct.
The Democratic candidates have a DEBATE, where one can respond to the other IMMEDIATELY, and TOMMY thinks THIS should be the topic of the exposure of Media misinformation? He can't be serious ... Obama was right there to explain what he really said and really meant. The audience could judge who won that "debate point."
In the MEDIA, especially on the talking head shows and AM radio, there is rarely ANY opposition voice to present alternative views and supporting evidence. (Rightwing media will occasionally put in a supposed voice "from the left", but they choose folks as ineffectual as Alan Colmes to be the liberal's champions ... thanks a lot!)
The pundits make their claims, and they stand as unopposed "TRUTH" to the audience, consumers of "NEWS" ... except sometimes those pundits are made to correct themselves grudgingly, due to pressure from MMFA and other watchdog sites.
TOMMY, do you REALLY see no difference between a mission to correct MEDIA misinformation, and acting as a fact-checker in a DEBATE with both parties PRESENT?
Forwarding the conservative agenda is clearly stipulated in MMFA's definition of 'conservative misinformation'.
Does Tim and Brian's "uncriticalness" of Hillary constitute forwarding the conservative agenda?
When Hillary used it, she was certainly forwarding her own agenda, but is her agenda conservative?
Tommy definitely has a point but I'm not sure which agenda was being forwarded, Hillary's or that of conservatives.
When a lie is left alone against the likely Democratic nominee for president, wouldn't you think that the media watchdog site monitoring such things would highlight it?
Of course they would, unless that lie is uttered by a fellow Democrat, or most notably Hillary Clinton. This isn't hard to understand.
Ah, I just read Lostlogic's point and read the transcript to confirm. This was the part of the debate I missed while chasing the kids around the house.
Obama was allowed to respond and set the record straight.
Tommy does not have a point after all.
Of course Obama was allowed to respond, where did I say otherwise? And since when does that stop MMFA? Many times there are panelists or pundits on when some lie is left unchallenged and it is put up here anyway, why is this any different just because it's a debate? Why should that matter to MMFA.
Double standard hypocrisy, you won't admit it, but I wouldn't expect you too.
An interview is one sided, a debate is not. They are not even close to being the same so there is no double standard.
Your contention is that the lie was "left unchallenged."
Since Obama was allowed to respond, the lie was not "left unchallenged."
If the moderators had not allowed Obama to respond to the lie, then your point would be valid.
If this was an interview of Hillary Clinton without Obama present and able to defend himself, your point would be valid.
Neither is true.
Alright Pete, I can see your point, and Lost's and Solon's, and the others. The debate format is different than an interview, I will give you that. I apologize for jumping down MMFA's throat on this one, it was uncalled for.
While I concede your point as being valid, I am still very disappointed that Hillary stooped to lying about Obama's position on Pakistan - and just when I thought she was ready to exit the race with some class, she pulls this.
I still say she deserves to lose.
Thanks for pointing out my error here.
Nice try Lost, to excuse Hillary's lie, but I am talking about MMFA calling out the media for uncritically letting this lie stand. Look at the dozens of other threads criticizing McCain for the exact same statement.
You are better than this.
Lost, Look at past threads where MMFA criticizes the media for letting this lie stand? Please explain to me how Russert or Williams' uncritical eye is any different? It is not, and you know it.
But I am a little surprised that you excuse such a lie as this in the first place. I guess supporting Hillary so blindly has made these types of falsehoods of hers standard fare. How sad.
Lost, I am not talking about calling out Hillary on her lie, I am specifically talking about calling out those in the media that "unciritically" let it stand, which MMFA does all the time when their uncritical eye is on a conservative. Don't be disingenuous.
I know you are smart enough to see that.
The way many of you look away and excuse MMFA's cherry picking, and even worse the way an outright lie told by one of your leading Democrats has you unfazed is pathetic.
So the next time a pundit comes on here and lies, let's see how "meh" you are about that? Amazing.
So you agree with them that Obama wants to bomb Pakistan? Perhaps you'd better read what he said again. '
Hillary deserves to lose playing dirty with facts such as this. If I hear anymore whining from her supporters about roughly she has been treated by the media, I am going to throw up.
Once again yes I think that was exactly what he was saying...I also think that is exactly the current policy...and I also think both Clinton and MCCain support that policy...my argument with Obama on this is a diplomatic one. BTW I think it is exagerated rhetoric to say bomb Pakistan it would be more accursate to say bomb targets in Pakistan...but that is a semantic argument...if you are bombing you are bombing.
Nice try Lost, to excuse Hillary's lie, but I am talking about MMFA calling out the media for uncritically letting this lie stand. Look at the dozens of other threads criticizing McCain for the exact same statement.
You are better than this.
You're missing the point completely, Tommy. MMFA's mission is to point out misinformation in the media - not misinformation stated by political candidates. But when the media includes that information in their reports without providing corrections or letting their readers/viewers/listeners know they've passed on misinformation, THAT'S when MMFA calls them on it.
Gimme a break. Do you want me to show you dozens of threads where MMFA criticizes the media for uncritically letting a lie stand?
Of course MMFA is not going to criticize any candidate, however they do criticize the media for enabling or letting falsehoods stand.
Fine, so next time MMFA posts a thread slamming someone in the media for uncritically letting a blatant falsehood stand, it will be entirely dependent on the guests and how equipped they are to respond to it.
How ridiculous.
If you are so anxious for Hillary to get the nomination that you could care less if she lies to get it, then that says alot about why we need Obama even more.
Yeah I am sooo evil I support Clinton. You know that doesn't really make a good argument when you don't bother to address the substance of what I am saying but just keep saying...but....but...you like Clinton...your bad...wha..wha...wha. Let me try again...it wasn;t the media that made the claim it was the candidate...the moderators then allowed the other candidate to respond therefore they did not let misinformation just hang out there.
Until then you have no point.
Actually, Tommy DOES have a point. But his hat covers it very well.... :-)
wz,
It seems to me that many here resort to the "mission statement" cover whenever it is pointed out how hypocritical MMFA has acted in it's selective outrage of misinformation.
Time and time again it is pointed out that many of the threads started have nothing to do with their "mission statement" and are simply thinly veiled talking points attacking conservatives and/or Republicans.
Nothing personal, but using the 'mission statement' defense reminds me of good ol' Bill speculating on the meaning of "is".
Solon,
Do you work for MMFA?
I'm flattered by your response to my post. Your "we don't care" made me think you were sitting around a room with MMFA buddies trying to outdo each other.
No matter.
ps. As a side note, I do not work for Rush. But thanks for the compliment. :-)
I use the 'Royal' we. As for you thinking it was a compliment all I can do is shudder.
You and me both. it's truly scary that anyone would consider it a compliment to be assiciated with that cigar-smoking, lying, pill-popping, serial-marrying, thrice-divorced, deeply-closeted gay man.
And Limbaugh STILL has not told the story behind his arrest in Pittsburgh in the company of a male prostitute in the Early '70s, when he was working under the pseudonym "Jeff Christie".
Time and time again it is pointed out that many of the threads started have nothing to do with their "mission statement" and are simply thinly veiled talking points attacking conservatives and/or Republicans. (Anotheramerican)
Since most MMFA items are transcripts, audio and video of conservative media people, I'd agree with your describing them as "thinly veiled talking points", except for the ones that aren't disguised at all.
I'm not sure how you think that has nothing to do with the mission statement, and I wouldn't say the items are "attacking" so much as "exposing". Unless those attacks are self-inflicted.
Sorry if I've misunderstood your post, I'm just not sure what you're saying has been pointed out.
I agree. It's one thing for Hillary to focus on her experience, and issues, and health care, and the rest......but when she stoops to this level, and outright lies about Obama when he is sitting right there, it is beyond the pale.
She deserves to lose.
I disagree. I thought Hillary made a good point and I am not a Hillary fan.
Would McCain or any of the other Republicans accept David Duke's endorsement or would they immediately reject it and denounce it?
I thought Obama looked pretty weak in his arguing his position. Conceding this point was the only avenue left open to him. But he had to be backed into a corner on national TV to do so.
What point? Obama is not responsible for those that endorse him, he denounced it and rejected it, essentially the same thing in the world of meaningless endorsements anyway. What would you have him do, publicly flog Farrakhan and say "leave me alone"?
Hillary was grasping at straws with this and it showed. Obama didn't waste time arguing the semantics of these two words, thankfully. It is irrelevant to anything important, Farrakhan's endorsement of anything, who cares?
I agree Tommy, this whole guilt-by-association stuff they're trying to pull by linking Obama to Farrakhan is really petty and just reeks of desperation.
On a side note, I heard through the grapevine that Russert isn't exactly an objective observer. Apparently back in 2000, at some function where both Presidential candidates attended, Russert went up to meet both of them, shook Gore's hand, and went on to shake Bush's hand. While Russert thought Gore wasn't looking, apparently he and a few people caught him showing Bush the underside of his lapel, which had a Bush campaign button on it.
Just something I heard, if anyone can substantiate the claim, please do. I can't seem to find it anymore.
this whole guilt-by-association stuff they're trying to pull by linking Obama to Farrakhan is really petty and just reeks of desperation.
You mean like some here like to say that Coulter, Hannity & Rush represent all Conservatives? ;-)
"You mean like some here like to say that Coulter, Hannity & Rush represent all Conservatives?"
Who said that, Jeter? Not to diminish your "snap" at all. ;0)
As do I. I have seen a tremendous diversity of opinion on both the left and the right, and there is good in both sides.
And I don't think Coulter represents anyone but Coulter. She's a shameless harpy who only says what she says to sell books. That, in my opinion, is the very definition of selling your soul.
However, I will have to say that Rush Limbaugh either does, or did at one time, represent the right wing of the Republican Party. I mean, he was made an honorary congressman...
I'm not saying he represented all conservatives, btw.
this whole guilt-by-association stuff they're trying to pull by linking Obama to Farrakhan is really petty and just reeks of desperation.
You mean like some here like to say that Coulter, Hannity & Rush represent all Conservatives? ;-)
When Farrakhan is invited to speak before major Democratic functions, used as a fundraiser and/or publicity flack for a Democratic Persidential campaign or made an honorary member of a Democratically controlled Congress as Coulter, Hannity & Rush have been, you might have a point. But the thing is that Farrakhan has not been embraced by the Democratic Party or by liberals in even a tenth of the way that the flaming airbags of the right have. You've got nothing here.
Moonbat,
Missing the point I see.
The trio I mentioned do not speak for all Conservatives, just as Farrakhan does not speak for all African-Americans. Guilt-by-association.
Now isn't that simple? No one said this was a Republican/Conservative vs Liberal/Democratic comparison.
Get it yet?
I still think you're stretching things a bit, but taken out of the ridiculous conservative/liberal framing we all get trapped in your example is slightly closer to being on point. It might be more fair to say that holding up Hannity as an example of what white people believe is similar to what is being done with Obama and Farrakhan.
Coulter is on her way to becoming as marginalized as Farrakhan is now but it's coming far too late. Hannity and Rush still enoy a very strong amount of support in the conservative world and nobody is asking the Republican candidates to distance themselves from them in the same way they are asking Obama to denounce radical minority leaders or Hillary to reject feminist extremists. The only reason McCain is doing these sorts of things voluntarily is because he can't win without a strong centrist appeal.
I did like Williams' ad lib after the exchange. After Obama brushed it aside by saying he both denounced and rejected there was audience applause. Williams responded "Rare audience outburst on the agreement over rejecting and renouncing."
Tommy,
I guess the point is the different playing field those on the left get to play on. Had a Republican gotten an endorsement by a racist, the press would have been all over it and they would have had to immediately denounce and reject the endorsement. But because he's a lefty, Obama gets a pass and can deflect a legitimate criticism by saying it is semantics?
Maybe it is his style as I only recently started watching him in debates but his very soft "denunciation" stood out to me that he really didn't have much of a problem with Farahkkan. I thought his conceding the point stood out like a beacon. He was simply too milquetoast.
Had it been a Republican candidate's tepid denounciation under pressure and it would have been headline news.
You really live in your own little world dont you?
I thought he lived in his parents' basement.... :-)
AA,
While I agree the media would be all over a Republican, how do you see Obama not being pressed on this?
Russert was quite thorough in his questioning on this topic. Obama did not get a pass.
Jeter,
My point was about the media's non-reaction to Farrakhan's endorsement before Russert asked the question. I thought Russert did an okay job but did not hold Obama's feet to the fire. As someone else pointed out the reference to Obama's racist minister got lost in the exchange with Hillary.
Grrrrr I keep trying to reply to AA here & MMFA keeps telling me to knock off the profanity. Only thing is, there isn't any in my post!! Heck you could read it in church!!
I've seen others complain about this too. Come on MMFA, please fix this problem.
AA, I'll keep trying to answer your post...
In fact I tried to use his name in this post and it was blocked. The only thing I changed to get this past the censor was to delete his name.
I used Richard, not Dick.
I wonder if it's possible to mention a Simmons Beautyrest Mattress?
My point was about the media's non-reaction to Farrakhan's endorsement before Russert asked the question.
AA, the reason for the media and Obama's non-reaction to Farrakhan is because he's not relevant. He's a sick old man who has never had the great appeal some portray him to have. He's no MLK or Malcolm X and has little if no influence or power in the African American communities.
It probably never occurred to Obama that his denunciation of Farrakhan could be viewed as anything other than a rejection of the endorsement. It's not as though Obama didn't denounce Farrakhan until he was called on it. He's been critical of Farrakhan for years.
Did anyone actually think "Obama is denouncing Farrakhan but he didn't use the word 'reject' so he must be accepting the endorsement." Is anyone that stupid?
Clinton was pushing a distinction without a difference.
Did anyone actually think "Obama is denouncing Farrakhan but he didn't use the word 'reject' so he must be accepting the endorsement." Is anyone that stupid?- BillJ-MN
Did you read all of the comments, Bill? ;0)
Lost,
I may have missed it, but I did not see in the news anywhere after hearing that Farrakhan endorsed Obama that he rejected it.
A google news search does not show anything before last night's debate.
It was only when pressed by Clinton and Russert did Obama give his limp wristed denunciation.
When you add that to his relationship with a racist pastor, his wife's 'proud' moment, it starts to gel that Barak may not be the all-american boy-next-door image he's been cultivating.
The difference being the media would have pressed McCain about two seconds after Duke endorsed McCain asking for a comment. It looks like it took over 24 hours for Russert to bring it up.
The difference being the media would have pressed McCain about two seconds after Duke endorsed McCain asking for a comment.
Very true. It's those pesky double standards that the Libs are always complaining they are the only victims of ;-)
"The difference being the media would have pressed McCain about two seconds after Duke endorsed McCain asking for a comment. It looks like it took over 24 hours for Russert to bring it up."
That's a ridiculous assertion. A whole 24 hours you say? Well that tears it, Obama must be getting a free pass in the media.
I mean, a whole 24 hours until it was brought up, it's almost as if Obama didn't talk to the media in that 24 hours...
She stated that his "denunciation" of Farrakhan didn't meet the standard of "rejection." It struck me as being very petty on Clinton's part.
That must be part of the "kitchen sink", unfortunately it was really petty.
re·ject -a verb used as an object...
1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.: to reject the offer of a better job.
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
de·nounce -verb (used with object), -nounced, -nounc·ing. 1. to condemn or censure openly or publicly: to denounce a politician as morally corrupt.
It's so interesting the way these Hillary supporters post on this site every time a media person opens their mouth and some falsehood or lie spills out, they are all over them - yet when Hillary herself tells a blatant lie about Obama wanting to bomb Pakistan, it's excused and rationalized and brushed under the rug like it's no big deal.
Well, when a politician, those who make our laws and work for us, tell lies, it's a far bigger deal than some dumb talk show host.
One drives you nuts, the other doesn't bother you? How pitiful.
Tommy,
You seem to forget that is exactly what Obama was implying. Did he not in the debate mention the drone bombing of Al Queda's #3 man in Pakistan as a similar position to his own? I think you are making too big a deal out of this supposed lie.
When are you and Tommy going to quit derailing threads? It's getting old - really.
They're using a standard ploy of the right - when you have nothing to back up your argument, derail the thread....
Apparently you do not understand what is a "thread". By definition it cannot be derailed otherwise complaining about it would also be derailing it and you would be guilty of your own complaint. Get it? :-)
Thanks for the fun interlude. :-)
"My real issue is the Pastor...he can't simply repudiate his views while remaining a member of his congregation...in my opinion. The pastor plays a roll in his life according to Obama and that is the real problem."
Why can't he? Does Obama follow his pastor blindly? Can he not take his sermons and/or advice to heart while critically analyzing them and forming his own opinions on the matter?
The one thing I would say is if it was petty why did Obama refuse to use the words reject when the moderator asked more then once if he would reject
You mean like the point in the debate when Obama stated:
Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.
I didn't see any point in the debate that Obama refused to use the word "reject." Perhaps you could point it out to me in the transcript.
Bill,
I am not arguing the point you made, but I think it is clear that to be happy to concede a point about rejecting and denouncing is not the same thing as really denouncing.
If it is, that's the weakest denouncement I have ever heard.
Within that phrase he stated that he did reject and denounce. It wasn't an aside about definitions, it was a statement of his position.
As far as weakness goes, it's not as though that was his only denouncement. He has been denouncing Farrakhan for years for his views. He offered strong denouncements within the debate itself. He stated "I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."
Looks like a pretty strong denunciation to me.
Bill,
I understand the words he used, but from my vantage point, there was no forcefulness or emotion behind those words. Reading the words comes across completely different than actually watching Obama reluctantly, (albeit happily,) concede the point. I felt it was obvious his body language and voice inflection did not match his words.
Bill wrote: Should he have maintained a constant level of outraged indignation for the full time the topic was Farrakhan?
Bill,
It looked to me like Barak never exhibited any outraged indignation at all during that segment. I didn't see any emotion at all when he was explaining his position. There was a disconnect the whole time between what he said and the way he said it.
No, I don't think outraged indignation was called for at all, must less all the way through. I wouldn't have seen it as an issue requiring an extra degree of passion. He treated the Farrakhan issue as inconsequential because he saw it that way.
I don't think he handled the original questioning any differently than he did any of the questions up to that point. It was controlled, thoughtful and intelligent throughout. You were seeing an offhandedness that I wasn't.
But, AnotherAmerican, if Obama did expressed "outrage" then people like you would say he's having a "Howard Dean moment." He's damned if he do, damned if he don't, it seems.
For heaven sakes, what do expect from Obama? To leap on top of the table, fire streaming from his nostrils and scream loudly to the camera, "I REJECT Louis Farrakhan and his views!" Obama stated that he rejects Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, that he honors the historical relationship between Jews and Blacks during the Civil Rights Movement, that he's pro-Israel. What more do you want?
I think what the Right finds upsetting is HOW Obama responds to opposition. Newt Gingrich warned Republicans that if they attack Obama thorough this route it's going to backfire because Obama’s way of handling attacks is unique: like Ronald Reagan he tends come off carefree, sardonic and because of that, unscathed, while the attacker is deemed desperate and petty. The question by Russert was dumb in the first place because he has denounced -- oops, excuse me, REJECTED -- Farrakhan a while back. He has explained his church and its self-help theology before. What is so frightening about black unity?
Is all this questioning about Obama's church has to do with the fact that there are many white people afraid that if he becomes president he's going to somehow seek retribution for past injustices such as Slavery and Jim Crow? This what it's all about, isn't it? Even the most moderate, non-threatening black man can't escape the stereotypes of black savagery. D.W. Griffith’s "A Birth of A Nation" was more prophetic than I thought.
"For heaven sakes, what do expect from Obama? To leap on top of the table, fire streaming from his nostrils and scream loudly to the camera, "I REJECT Louis Farrakhan and his views!" (Preston)
Ha! That's what I've been trying to figure out, Obama is questioned about what is really a non-issue; Does he denounce somebody who has nothing to do with him, and for whom he has expressed his disapproval in the past? Why should he, any more than anybody else, be pressured to do tricks for the camera?
But then again, AA was interpreting body language, and Obama wasn't meeting the expected hysteria level that a couch-fainter might imagine the situation called for. Too funny.
But then again, AA was interpreting body language, and Obama wasn't meeting the expected hysteria level that a couch-fainter might imagine the situation called for. Too funny.
Too funny, indeed! I should expect such remarks from AA, because repeatedly he has proven to be unreasonable with his black-and-white sort of thinking. No wonder he sounds identical to Sean Hannity.
He may be watching a little bit too much BilldO'Reilly, too.Seems sort of conditioned towards emotion over reason, not to mention the "body language interpretation". ;0)
Hey guys, I appreciate your attempts at understanding me. However, rather than misinterpret my motivations, why not just talk about the ideas? I think you mistakenly mischaracterize the point I was making.
Preston, no I didn't think Obama needed to shout or become enraged. You are creating a straw man with that argument. I simply pictured in my mind immediately after he gave his 'denounciation', what if someone else had used the same body language and the same monotone. If they had, I doubt it would have passed muster. I saw what I believe to be a disconnect. In my humble opinion, in this instance, his voice inflection and his body language did not match his words.
Of course everyone is free to interpret Obama's answer in their own way. Obama's 'happily conceding' comment, was, in my opinion, out of sync with the subject of rebuking and disavowing Farrakhan and the criticism Clinton leveled toward him.
Ok, re-reading the early part of the transcript I can see where he didn't happen to use the term "reject." From the video it appears to me he was trying to give a more substantial answer and it possibly didn't occur to him that his use of the word "reject" was required to make his position clear. He didn't hesitate a short time later when the use of the word was brought up again.
I just couldn't see it as a weak rejection of Farrakhan or any dancing around the question.
When the moderator attempted to get Obama to say reject and Obama stuck to denounce my impression was this. Obama is a great speaker who chooses his words precisely. One rule of thumb in the political arena is to always answer a question with the words you choose, and not necessarily the questioner's words. My impression was that Obama was being disciplined by following that rule. As soon as Hillary began speaking I saw exactly where she was going with reject and you could see a bemused look on Obama's face. It wasn't a big deal to him and he handled it well.
I feel the same way, Jawill. Obama seemed to be onlly amused that the distinction was being made.What some here saw as a wimpy response was simply a rational answer, and then an explanation, forced by those trying to create an artificial difference between "reject" and "denounce".
I got a good laugh out of it, actually. Obama sort of got in a funny, as he laughingly "conceded" the imaginary difference, and Hillary said "Good!" or something like that, as if she was claiming a victory in the matter.
I may have to add on a denunciation register to my Jingometer.
Jingometer?
USA! USA! USA!... ;>)
Is our company putting out the Jingometer or is this one of your side projects?
I have no problem if it's a side project. I wish you well.
My question is how do you pronounce the word?
Is the emphasis on the "O" as in Jing-O meter? Or is it pronounced Jingometer as in thermometer?
Hey it's the NY Times, what do ya expect? Of course I'm sure everyone here was concerned about their half-baked article on McCain too. Yeah right ;-)
Sorry I just can't conjure up any outrage on this one.
But it's nice to know the NY Times is fair & balanced when it comes to their sloppy reporting.